2025 NSIC transfer portal

[DUPanther]

Do you think Augustana's 2016 NC would have happened in todays college BB world? Casey Schilling and Dniel Jansen would have been lured away with NIL $$$ in previous seasons IMO. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Who knows in a world where everyone's good players are getting lured, but I can say without a doubt there's no way in today's world that 3 of the starting 5 on our national championship team from 2013 wouldn't have had multiple D1 offers early in their careers here.

It's going to apply to all teams equally, but now you better win with young guys or guys who've dropped down from D1 and aren't going to look there any longer. Once your high school recruits prove they're capable of playing high level D2 ball, they're going to get offers to move to D1. Counting on keeping guys in your program for 4 years is going to be a losing battle.

[DUPanther]

Correct.

Also, watch the transfer portal for mid major teams. My guess is that the mid major annual exodus only grows with the new rules. Feels kinda similar to the past MLB analysis where the small market teams pretend to compete with Dodgers and Yankees…every once in a blue moon it may happen, but in general the small market teams can’t really compete.

And the current situation in college athletics is way worse than any pro sport. At least in MLB players have contracts that tie them to a team for a number of years. In college, every player is now an unrestricted free agent every year. Can you imagine what would happen if MLB or the NFL was that way?

[Thunder]

I think you're missing the boat if you don't recognize massive changes in college basketball within the last year. 2023 is more comparable to 1995 than it is to 2025 - for 2 reasons:

1. The new transfer rules just took effect last April. The NIL money gave the Power 4 schools a big advantage, but coupled with the new transfer rules where no one has to sit out, it makes anyone below that level a farm team. When San Diego State played in the National Championship game 2 years ago 4 of their top 6 players were seniors. There's zero chance that happens today. 3 of those 4 would be at Power 4 schools making $500k or more in 2025. Their best big man this year is a redshirt freshman 7 footer who averaged 8 pts and 5 rebs - he's already declared for the portal and is currently being courted by Michigan and Kentucky. Any player at a mid major or below who has a good enough year to be all-conference is getting offered to move up. There's just no way you're going to be able to keep a kid for 4 years if they can really play.

2. The stigma that D1 coaches and AD's had for levels below them isn't there any longer. Not too long ago, a coach looked at a D2 kid and turned up their nose, thinking there's no way they could play at the D1 level. Now, they're scouting the D2, D3, and NAIA national tournaments for their next recruit. McCollum and the 4 players he took with him just obliterated what was left of the "D1 only" club. The number of D2 players that have eligibility left that are in the portal looking for a D1 home is huge. Gonna be hard to maintain high level basketball when your best players leave every year.

I'm not missing the boat, just probably being a little argumentative about it. I completely agree that you cannot plan on having any key player on your roster from year to year and that stinks for lower level teams. It is going to be absolutely a difficult task for a non Power team to make a deep run in March. My argument is that has always been true. I still believe there will be a good coach that is able to get the right combination of players and catch lightning in a bottle to make a run some day. That is what makes it so special and always has.

As for us in the D2 world, again I agree with you that the best players are going to be recruited up. But, that is now the rules of the game for everyone. And if everyone at D2 is playing by the same rules then the game is fair. A good D2 coach will need to be resourceful in building a roster each year with some combination of high school players and transfers and hopefully some good players he can convince to stay.

My bigger point is that I'm just tired of everyone always saying how bad college sports is now because of these changes. College sports are great. The industry of big-time college athletics outgrew the original model and needed to change. That caused changes for us at the lower level too. We can choose to accept and adapt to that or whine and complain about the "good ol' days". I guess I'm just going to try to enjoy it as the entertainment that it is and not get to worked up about the best player from my favorite team accepting a better job when he earns it.

[DUPanther]

I'm not missing the boat, just probably being a little argumentative about it. I completely agree that you cannot plan on having any key player on your roster from year to year and that stinks for lower level teams. It is going to be absolutely a difficult task for a non Power team to make a deep run in March. My argument is that has always been true. I still believe there will be a good coach that is able to get the right combination of players and catch lightning in a bottle to make a run some day. That is what makes it so special and always has.

As for us in the D2 world, again I agree with you that the best players are going to be recruited up. But, that is now the rules of the game for everyone. And if everyone at D2 is playing by the same rules then the game is fair. A good D2 coach will need to be resourceful in building a roster each year with some combination of high school players and transfers and hopefully some good players he can convince to stay.

My bigger point is that I'm just tired of everyone always saying how bad college sports is now because of these changes. College sports are great. The industry of big-time college athletics outgrew the original model and needed to change. That caused changes for us at the lower level too. We can choose to accept and adapt to that or whine and complain about the "good ol' days". I guess I'm just going to try to enjoy it as the entertainment that it is and not get to worked up about the best team from my favorite team accepting a better job when he earns it.

This is like saying it’s not harder to climb the Empire State Building because it’s already been hard to climb the tree in my backyard for years.

I would point out that the very first NCAA D1 tournament after the new transfer rules went into effect featured a sweet sixteen entirely represented by just 4 conferences, and that’s the first time that’s happened in tournament history.

And I agree that this is hitting most D2 school’s equally - my point there is that it’s going to lower the overall level of play in D2 - probably significantly.

[Thunder]

This is like saying it’s not harder to climb the Empire State Building because it’s already been hard to climb the tree in my backyard for years.

I would point out that the very first NCAA D1 tournament after the new transfer rules went into effect featured a sweet sixteen entirely represented by just 4 conferences, and that’s the first time that’s happened in tournament history.

And I agree that this is hitting most D2 school’s equally - my point there is that it’s going to lower the overall level of play in D2 - probably significantly.

I think the degree of the increased advantages may be a tad bit exaggerated here. If the profit sharing actually happens in the NCAA it opens the opportunity for a school to invest in basketball to keep up with the big boys, like Gonzaga for instance with no football.

The fact that there are now 68 teams in those 4 conference also tips the scale in their favor as they just have more teams. But to say there will never be a Cinderella again is, I think, unnecessary doomsaying.

As for D2, there are only so many roster spots in college sports. Kids are continually getting more athletic and more skilled so I think the level of play at this level will be just fine. You are just going to have to have a coach that is able to adapt to the new world order.

[Mark Emmert's Burner]

My bigger point is that I'm just tired of everyone always saying how bad college sports is now because of these changes. College sports are great. The industry of big-time college athletics outgrew the original model and needed to change. That caused changes for us at the lower level too. We can choose to accept and adapt to that or whine and complain about the "good ol' days". I guess I'm just going to try to enjoy it as the entertainment that it is and not get to worked up about the best team from my favorite team accepting a better job when he earns it.

This entire paragraph crushes, but especially the bolded part. We're never going back to the old model, and guess what: that old model had plenty of issues, too. My original sarcastic comment that kind of kick-started this was a comment on how people act like money is only now an issue now that NIL is around. How money impacts collegiate sports has always been the most major issue. To act like it wasn't is burying your head in the sand.

[DUPanther]

I think the degree of the increased advantages may be a tad bit exaggerated here. If the profit sharing actually happens in the NCAA it opens the opportunity for a school to invest in basketball to keep up with the big boys, like Gonzaga for instance with no football.

Profit sharing isn't where we are right now. Where we're at is the same setup as every pro sports league except there's no salary cap and unlimited free agency. No other team sports league on the planet operates that way. (Also, that's a huge *if* - why would the power schools ever agree to any kind of revenue sharing that is substantial enough to matter?)

What could happen that could possibly make the advantage any bigger than it is right now?

The fact that there are now 68 teams in those 4 conference also tips the scale in their favor as they just have more teams. But to say there will never be a Cinderella again is, I think, unnecessary doomsaying.

This isn't factually true. 2 years ago there was 1 more power conference - but the number of teams in "power" conferences hasn't really changed. Before the Pac 12 went away there were 69 teams in the ACC, Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12, and SEC. Most of the Pac 12 teams were just absorbed by the Big 10, Big 12 and ACC.

I'm not saying a non-power school will never make the sweet 16 again, but it's harder by an order of magnitude than it was 2 years ago. The odds of one making the Final 4 are close to zero, and if you're going to do it, you better go from somewhat under the radar to really good in 1 year, because 1 year is all you're going to get. The teams like San Diego St who put together a really good run from 2020-2024 aren't going to be able to hold it together that long now.

As for D2, there are only so many roster spots in college sports. Kids are continually getting more athletic and more skilled so I think the level of play at this level will be just fine. You are just going to have to have a coach that is able to adapt to the new world order.

I'm not saying it won't be a good sport to watch, but there's no denying there's less overall talent in D2 now than there was just 5 years ago. It's been a marked decline in the last 10-15 years and this will accelerate it. Just look at the portal - how many All-Conference selections with eligibility left in the NSIC, MIAA, and GLVC are in there vs how many are returning? Take a count - I know I did in the GLVC and it's shocking.

[Thunder]

Profit sharing isn't where we are right now. Where we're at is the same setup as every pro sports league except there's no salary cap and unlimited free agency. No other team sports league on the planet operates that way. (Also, that's a huge *if* - why would the power schools ever agree to any kind of revenue sharing that is substantial enough to matter?)

I don't know all the specifics but aren't they talking about having a certain dollar amount that an entire D1 athletic department has to pay it's athletes. I know it's not finalized by any means but I thought it was being discussed. I thought I had heard this could allow some schools to really focus $$$ on different sports, especially if you don't have football. Or that maybe some schools would try to become a national power in baseball, softball, etc. It will probably only lead to big-time programs figuring out how to circumvent that number, but again, playing in those gray areas has ALWAYS been the case with the NCAA.

This isn't factually true. 2 years ago there was 1 more power conference - but the number of teams in "power" conferences hasn't really changed. Before the Pac 12 went away there were 69 teams in the ACC, Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12, and SEC. Most of the Pac 12 teams were just absorbed by the Big 10, Big 12 and ACC.

I'm not saying a non-power school will never make the sweet 16 again, but it's harder by an order of magnitude than it was 2 years ago. The odds of one making the Final 4 are close to zero, and if you're going to do it, you better go from somewhat under the radar to really good in 1 year, because 1 year is all you're going to get. The teams like San Diego St who put together a really good run from 2020-2024 aren't going to be able to hold it together that long now.

I guess the point I was making was more in regards to the fact that only 4 conferences were represented. Yes, before basically the same teams were split up into 5 Power conferences. And I agree with you that when the next Cinderella makes a deep tournament run, it will almost certainly come out of nowhere. I believe there will be a program somewhere that is able to keep a few key contributors, maybe even add a portal transfer because that door does swing both ways and possibly have an impact freshman that is overlooked because the big schools are putting less emphasis on high school recruiting. You get a coach that is able to put that together and they have the right chemistry and some luck and that is how Cinderella crashes the party. It's always been unlikely for a team like that to make a run, but it has happened before and I still believe it will happen again.

I'm not saying it won't be a good sport to watch, but there's no denying there's less overall talent in D2 now than there was just 5 years ago. It's been a marked decline in the last 10-15 years and this will accelerate it. Just look at the portal - how many All-Conference selections with eligibility left in the NSIC, MIAA, and GLVC are in there vs how many are returning? Take a count - I know I did in the GLVC and it's shocking.

I'll push back on this too for the same reason. Yes, I agree, you will almost certainly never see a 3 year all conference player again in the NSIC, MIAA, or GLVC. Those players will earn a call-up to a bigger school. However, there are talented players that don't make it or don't find the right fit at lower level D1 schools that transfer down and become impact players at this level. See Mankato over the years or Moorhead over this past run. They have been able to add some key pieces from D1 transfers. I also believe D2 schools will have the opportunity to bring in some talented high schoolers that are now going to be overlooked as the big schools recruit other college rosters more than high schools. Now, those players are probably going to leave after a year or 2, but that doesn't mean they aren't good players while they are here.

I think we actually agree on a lot of way that college sports has changed and is currently operating. Our viewpoint on what that means for the sports is just different. Things are not going back to the old way of doing business. The sooner administrators, coaches, and fans adapt to that realization and try to plot a better path forward instead of trying to hold on to what was, the better it will be for everyone involved.

[Purple Mav Man]

Sometimes I don’t understand why people even watch/put time into sports if they hate them so much. Things are definitely different and everything is still in catch up mode.

The other thing I don’t understand. People love to throw out the student part of student athlete. Especially the ones with the difficulty accepting the new landscape. The is NOTHING that stops a ‘regular’ student from transferring every semester. Why fault someone for trying to benefit financially on such a small window of opportunity in their life?

[DUPanther]

Sometimes I don’t understand why people even watch/put time into sports if they hate them so much. Things are definitely different and everything is still in catch up mode.

The other thing I don’t understand. People love to throw out the student part of student athlete. Especially the ones with the difficulty accepting the new landscape. The is NOTHING that stops a ‘regular’ student from transferring every semester. Why fault someone for trying to benefit financially on such a small window of opportunity in their life?

I don't think I said either of these things, but students and student-athletes have always been two separate things. In some cases, there's nothing from stopping a regular student from transferring mid-semester. There's also nothing that stops a regular student from attending 3 schools at the same time if they want, or from attending school for 10 years. There's some rules that student-athletes live by because it allows college sports to function as a viable product people want to get involved in.

[DUPanther]

I don't know all the specifics but aren't they talking about having a certain dollar amount that an entire D1 athletic department has to pay it's athletes. I know it's not finalized by any means but I thought it was being discussed. I thought I had heard this could allow some schools to really focus $$$ on different sports, especially if you don't have football. Or that maybe some schools would try to become a national power in baseball, softball, etc. It will probably only lead to big-time programs figuring out how to circumvent that number, but again, playing in those gray areas has ALWAYS been the case with the NCAA.

The only revenue sharing I'm aware of is the House ruling will allow schools to share revenue their program generates from media rights, ticket sales, etc, with the athletes starting next year (it's around 20%). So, that doesn't really do anything for parity - if anything it just makes the gap wider. I don't think there's ever been anything proposed that suggests there will be revenue sharing amongst the schools or among the NCAA as a whole.

I'll push back on this too for the same reason. Yes, I agree, you will almost certainly never see a 3 year all conference player again in the NSIC, MIAA, or GLVC. Those players will earn a call-up to a bigger school. However, there are talented players that don't make it or don't find the right fit at lower level D1 schools that transfer down and become impact players at this level. See Mankato over the years or Moorhead over this past run. They have been able to add some key pieces from D1 transfers. I also believe D2 schools will have the opportunity to bring in some talented high schoolers that are now going to be overlooked as the big schools recruit other college rosters more than high schools. Now, those players are probably going to leave after a year or 2, but that doesn't mean they aren't good players while they are here.

I think we actually agree on a lot of way that college sports has changed and is currently operating. Our viewpoint on what that means for the sports is just different. Things are not going back to the old way of doing business. The sooner administrators, coaches, and fans adapt to that realization and try to plot a better path forward instead of trying to hold on to what was, the better it will be for everyone involved.

I agree that more talented high-schoolers will be available at the D2 level. A lot of D1 programs aren't even recruiting high school kids now. I'm really just lamenting what it's going to do to the game at this level. I love to watch well coached, disciplined teams where the team is more than the sum of the parts. Teams like Northwest when McCollum was there. Like Drury had for much of the Hesser era. Those teams rely on continuity - you can't play that way with constant turnover. That model is going to be gone from the game at this level, and it's a shame - not least of all for the kids who play on those types of teams.

[NSU4LIFE]

Sometimes I don’t understand why people even watch/put time into sports if they hate them so much. Things are definitely different and everything is still in catch up mode.

The other thing I don’t understand. People love to throw out the student part of student athlete. Especially the ones with the difficulty accepting the new landscape. The is NOTHING that stops a ‘regular’ student from transferring every semester. Why fault someone for trying to benefit financially on such a small window of opportunity in their life?

I practice what I preach. While I still hope for my teams to win, I watch maybe 1% of what I used to, I dont even know the players from half of the teams (outside of Northern) until March Madness starts, I've almost completely checked out.

I hate what it is now, and what I loved about college athletics is mostly gone.

If people enjoy it, great. It's great for players, great.

Im only one person, but I have stood by my words. Heck, my posts per week is down from 250 to probably five. Lol

[Purple Mav Man]

I don't think I said either of these things, but students and student-athletes have always been two separate things. In some cases, there's nothing from stopping a regular student from transferring mid-semester. There's also nothing that stops a regular student from attending 3 schools at the same time if they want, or from attending school for 10 years. There's some rules that student-athletes live by because it allows college sports to function as a viable product people want to get involved in.

I’m not saying anyone specific. That’s just a predominant theme in the conversation many times. I guess I really just fail to see why a program should own a player? They commit to the scholarship, which is year to year, and everyone involved understand the terms. If something better for them arises the following season, why should they not be able to take it?

As for comparisons to other sports, correct, no other seems to have unlimited free agency, although you could sign a 1 year contract over and over, nothing is stopping that. But no other also has a (somewhat defined) limited window in which you can participate.

[Purple Mav Man]

I practice what I preach. While I still hope for my teams to win, I watch maybe 1% of what I used to, I dont even know the players from half of the teams (outside of Northern) until March Madness starts, I've almost completely checked out.

I hate what it is now, and what I loved about college athletics is mostly gone.

If people enjoy it, great. It's great for players, great.

Im only one person, but I have stood by my words. Heck, my posts per week is down from 250 to probably five. Lol

I am the same, but for me, it’s just my interests have shifted as an adult. And when it comes to bracket filling time, I’m reminded how little I’ve watched D1 ball and how unfamiliar with almost all teams I am. Ha.

Although I guess I don’t hate what it is now. I strongly dislike some of the conference alignments and affiliations, but it kinda seems like that’ll change angaim before too long anyway.

[Thunder]

The only revenue sharing I'm aware of is the House ruling will allow schools to share revenue their program generates from media rights, ticket sales, etc, with the athletes starting next year (it's around 20%). So, that doesn't really do anything for parity - if anything it just makes the gap wider. I don't think there's ever been anything proposed that suggests there will be revenue sharing amongst the schools or among the NCAA as a whole.




I agree that more talented high-schoolers will be available at the D2 level. A lot of D1 programs aren't even recruiting high school kids now. I'm really just lamenting what it's going to do to the game at this level. I love to watch well coached, disciplined teams where the team is more than the sum of the parts. Teams like Northwest when McCollum was there. Like Drury had for much of the Hesser era. Those teams rely on continuity - you can't play that way with constant turnover. That model is going to be gone from the game at this level, and it's a shame - not least of all for the kids who play on those types of teams.

Yeah, the House ruling was what I was thinking of. I thought that put some sort of cap on what big schools would be able to pay all of their athletes so in theory it would somewhat limit their ability to be uncapped. But I don’t know (heck I don’t think the NCAA knows) how that will work.

And yes, everything will need to be microwaved in regards to building a team now. The best teams will be those that improve and gel the most in 4 months instead of 4 years now. But I’m optimistic (some may say naive) that teams will be able to do that and there will still be some very good basketball played at the D2 level.